How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

All very good points.

 

From the L.A. Times' Column:

 

Translated: Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

 

All I have to add to this is: Wow.

I think everyone needs to read these two stories and follow the debate here. This all goes to the heart of what we do. In this Post-Jayson Blair, Post-Stephen Glass, Post-Dateline world, the trust we used to have in the public eye has eroded.

Can we regain that trust? Of course. But we must be willing to understand promising anonymity to someone we know has their own agenda is not something we can do lightly ... or perhaps ever, good or bad.

These two BALCO journalists committed a major ethical violation if they did indeed press on with their insider information while knowing the lawyer was making a false charge. It comes down to doing the right thing for the wrong reason and greedy gain, I suppose. Thanks for posting this, SF

 

Yeah, it's interesting, although posting on the topic here has been a little light today. I'll blame post-All-Star game, and the holiday.

 

That's not a threadjack at all. It's part of the central point.

Well, one side could be that the grand jury would have finished its job, it would have all come out in the indictments, and then everything that has been happening would have happened after that.

And the reporters wouldn't have gotten their hot-selling book.

On the other hand, they DID spark a debate that has been healthy.

But in the end, was what they did right strictly from the standpoint of what we're supposed to be about?

 

In my experience, 'yab, the leaks of damning stuff is more likely to come from the prosecution side. I meant that generally, not in this case. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I never dreamed that this whole thing was a scam cooked up by the defense. Reporters are alsor equired to keep their damn eyes open and, if they get used, to blow the source that used them.

 

First reporter who gets to Ellerman gets a helluva journalism story. I, for one, want to know who promised whom what, when, and why. It's a Rubik's cube of possibilities, and damned if I can imagine one scenario that makes me happy the Chronicle went back to the Ellerman poisoned well. I say "Chroniocle" here, not Fainaru-Wada and Williams, because whatever judgments were made on proceeding with the reporting, I have to believe were made by the editor-in-chief Bronstein, his m.e. Rosenthal, and Hearst lawyers.

 

No story is "too big" or "too in-depth" for reporters. But some present legal questions that reporters are not qualified to answer. And some present moral and ethical questions that the corporate bosses must answer. In the end, it's the Chronicle's story, not the reporters'.

 

That was my question earlier in this thread--what legal or ethical precedent is there for protecting a source who is not only committing a crime, but also using your newspaper to do it? Every time the Chron reported Ellerman's contention that the prosecution was the leak, did they do so knowing it was a lie?

At some point, wouldn't it have been a big enough story to print 'Defense Leaks Testimony, Falsely Accuses Prosecution'?

And even if the Guys at the Top ordered the reporters to 'do it,' these are reporters who said no to a judge who ordered them to 'do it.' They could have said no here as well.

But all of this is just chatter, because I have to believe the real story isn't known yet...it's just too simple and dumb right now. There has to be more to it. I hope.